accommodative health insurance, incentivizes people to use the system and drives up costs because they go to the doctor when they may not need it. there will be really hefty tax on these things. 40 percent of the premiums over $27,500 in a few years. unions could be disproportionately affected by that tax. host: jay hancock, senior correspondent with kaiser health news. i think we're good to wrap up now. jay hancock, thank you for joining us to talk about the taxes and fees as part of the new health-care law. appreciate your time. you are on twitter. that is all for "washington journal."

>> stephanie has been active in democratic circles. she was the national director for howard dean's 24 -- 2004 election. she helped to unseat an 18 year republican incumbent. stephanie also managed the campaign of senator frank and i and minnesota. she defeated norm coleman, correct? she is a graduate of c-span.o [indiscernible] university in minnesota.

she has a lot to say and then we will field questions from all of you. thank you, stephanie. >> thank you all so much for coming out. good morning. again, my name is stephanie schriock, president of emily's list. as mentioned, i grew up in butte, montana, where my heart and soul still reside. special thanks to the national press club for setting the solemn. it really is an honor for me to be here today. for those of you who do not know as much about emily's list, emily's list has been around for 27 years. we are solely committed to electing pro-choice democratic women to office up and down the ballot across the country.

as mentioned, we had a good election cycle in 2012. two years before that, and would save like most folks, i was ready to see the 112th congress and. i could not have been more excited to see the new congress on thursday. we saw the swearing in of tammy baldwin and elizabeth warren. they were joined by 20 women in the senate. our three new senators? they are the first women in their states to serve in the senate. we're still breaking through the glass ceilings around the country. we saw 16 new pro-choice

democratic women sworn in across the country. it is quite a group. a diverse group at that. the first women who have never seen combat are serving in this house of representatives. just north of here we have a unique story in new hampshire where we have the first state in the union to have an all female delegation and governor in this country. it was quite a night and the 113th congress has the greatest number of women serving ever in our history. how i can proudly say the 59% of them are emily's list candidate for. it is not hard to see why many were calling this the year of a woman. we do not just make changes to the congress overnight.

for us, this is a result of 27 years of hard, hard work. we have been working with women, recruiting and training women at all levels for 27 years to build a pipeline so that we continually have young women stepping up to run for office. when we started working with tammy in her state legislature, standing by when she ran for the house, we can proudly call them united states senators. it is not just about electing women. it is about advancing leadership through the process. we often look at one of our dear friends, barbara mikulski. our investment in her, our first investment as an organization, culture to win that seat in

1986. her hard work and dedication has resulted in her being the first woman to lead the very important senate appropriations committee. the more women than we have gaining seniority means we have more women in leadership. dianne feinstein, chairman of intelligence, patty murray, chair budget. barbara boxer, chair of the environment. seven women for ranking members on the house committee. on the republican side? every major committee is led by a white male. in fact there is only one woman sharing a minor committee in the house. so, what does this mean? does it really matter? it changes the conversation that

the negotiation table. senator gillibrand often tells the story of serving on the armed services committee. when they were talking about military readiness, she and women like daddy giffords were there to rest questions about personnel and mental health programs for the troops and their families at home. you cannot tell me that if we had two or three women involved in the fiscal cliff debate over the last month that we would not have gotten through it faster. i was at home over the hollow eyes with my father. we knew where we would end up. we knew that there would be tax increases. but women just want to get these things done and keep moving forward.

these republican men, john boehner in particular, tend to want to stand around and found on their chest rather than getting things done and i think it is time to get the speaker's gavel out of his hands and back into the hands of a woman. making sure that congress is having a conversation that americans are having every single night. it was not just a fiscal cliff. when you look at the last days of the 112th congress, you can see why we are so happy that this congress is over. the outrageous refusal from speaker boehner to bring to a vote the needed relief for our fellow americans suffering from hurricane sandy is an outrage. then they let the session end without reauthorize and the

violence against women act. they let a normally bipartisan legislation expires since the first time since 1994, putting women across the country of risks because they wanted to refuse to protect vulnerable populations like immigrants and native americans and members of the lgbt community. with priorities like that, you will not be surprised if this. we conducted some critical research on independent women voters in battleground states. what we found was quite stunning. the women there were not impressed with congress. what is stunning is that 77% of these independent women voters -- 77% -- said that congress

was old, out of touch male politicians who do not have a clue what life is like for people like them. i am pretty sure that if we hold on new year's eve, the number -- pulled will -- polled on new year's eve, the number would be even higher. as one talked-about the numbers -- i just want to talk about the change in the conversation. one of our new congress members had to grow up in a gas station that had no running electricity for two years growing up. you cannot tell me that she does not understand what families across this country are going through. our new member from hawaii, our new member from illinois, they're both women who have

served in combat. they know what life is like in a real way for those returning from combat. diesel the voices we are going to have for years to come in these debates. this is what we want congress to look more like america. we know that the best way to get a progressive policy is to have an equal number of women and men sitting at the negotiation table, making decisions for our communities. we will work every single day to make that happen. we recruit, train, and support women up and down the ballot. we support the women and the good men who are with us to stand by these women until their election. we put programs in place to turn out women voters. we had an historic year in 2012.

80% of our candidates won. we raised a record number, $51.2 million. quintupling our membership to over $2 million -- 2 million members, excuse me, over the last few years. there is great energy around women's leadership in this country right now. we turned out women voters in our largest ever expenditure program across the country. in turning out these voters we did not just to let historic people to congress, but we have helped president barack obama, who has been so good for women across the country. it is so clear that this election was about women. women candidates, women donors. we heard a lot about women's issues. some in a way that i would prefer not to hear about.

we heard about women voters who made those decisions. there was a lot of talk about the new democratic coalition of young people, hispanics, and women. i think that that is a great coalition. women are not just a voting bloc or a subset of the population. they are 51% of the population. last time that i checked, that was the majority. this last election, 55% of the women voted for president obama. there was an 18. gender gap. for every unmarried woman who voted for mitt romney, two voted for obama. women are going to make the decisions for the elections to come. they will decide to hold the power in this country.

we know what is moving women voters. " we know how to expand the winning coalition to come. do not make a mistake of thinking that this is a one issue election. our research shows that this matter just as much as the social issues for these voters. 78% of the women we polled rank equal pay amongst the most important issues facing the country. an issue that the republicans have stonewalled and opposed and called a nuisance. i think they told us that they would get back to us on that. women understand and reject all aspects of this gop agenda. they were even more voted -- more motivated to vote for a

democratic candidate and a brighter future. 76% of the women that we hold voted for a candidate. only 16% voted against. think about that. more than any other issue, women were excited to vote for a candidate that they thought had the right priority, which was clearly not the republicans. 89% of the women that we polled said that that was very important, that the candidate had the right priorities. the other important thing is that the women that we polled after the election got at something big in november. that this was a different election. when we told respondents that a historic number of democratic women had been collected, 56% -- these are independent voters --

56% thought that it would make a positive difference. only 8% thought that it would make the opposite effect. women saw the gop agenda and understood the harm it would do to our rights and freedoms. they reacted by sending a group of people to washington that they felt had the right priorities. we asked women also about the problems they had with the candidates that they voted against. why did you vote against this republican? it was not just health care or social issues. there were most concerned that these candidates would take america backwards to the failed policies of the past. these independent women want to move forward.

they do not want to roll back the clock of america in this country. women recognize that the total bad man agenda -- mad men agenda, if i can call it that, did not want it. i say that this coalition is strong and going to grow. they know that it is going to make a difference. we are going to use this historic year to lay the foundation for years to come. this is not about one the election for us. we have been looking at the opportunities for 2013. there are 38 governors up for election between now and the election. those are critical races for

women and families in this country. we have seen the priorities of state legislatures across the country. in 2011 and 2012 we saw the greatest number of restrictions on women's do have access to health in the history of this country. we need to make sure we have good, strong, pro-choice women governors to draw the line in the sand. they need to be there to draw the line in the sand to protect women's health and block voter id laws. to make sure that workers' rights are protected. races have already begun at emily's list. i cannot believe that i want to say this, three pro-choice women running in the election right now, you may not know this, but

this is exactly how the cycle started. emily's list was involved in four of these elections. we start early, right there in the name. do nothing but we are not looking seriously at 2016 and who will be running them. after the next cycle to come, i would like to open up about 2012 moving forward. thank you so much. >> let's have questions. please identify yourself and your organization. ok.

>> [inaudible] view talked about this being the year of the women -- the year the woman. i have read the analysis of what went wrong for the republicans. even amongst the democrats now, there is a need for republicans, as culminated by katherine parker in "the washington post's," you are talking about this being the year of the woman, our people overlooking the importance of women in these zero elections? >> it is interesting, i am with you on the question. i have been surprised at how little we have heard from the republican party about their 18.

gender gap. that is a nonstarter. you cannot win elections with those kinds of gaps and it will be released as the republican party continues to push for work parties that are alienating women voters, particularly independent women voters. it comes from the bills that they continue to introduce and the fact that they put in leadership and entire cast of white men to run these committees. it is stunning, i do not think they have learned the lesson and i am not quite sure why that is. i would love to know. if i was in charge of the republican party, i would not be handling this in the same way. reach williams monthly. i am wondering -- >> you reach

millions monthly. i am wondering what is the best former digital access to move your message forward? >> a great question. thank you so much for being here. the best way to connect everyone is on line. the ability to be part of this large community. earlier i said that we were not public, but we were five times bigger, 2 million members in the last two years. that is a massive amount of growth. truthfully, i think we can go much further. that is where we need the help. we need to introduce was going on to these women who have these busy lives. women working one job, to jobs to balance everything out, politics for regular folks is

not even on the top 10 list of their daily lives. our job is to make it part of the fabric. it is really important. important locally on your school board, important in the city's in deciding between safety and education, we need women to really getting gauged in politics. truthfully, we need them to run for office. many more and more women to run for office. one of the big focuses over the next many years is to get more women to run for legislature, city council. that is our pipeline to congress. it is also the regulations and laws being passed everyday affecting our lives and the lives of our family. >> questions?

>> i am kathryn lewis, a freelance journalist for "the new york times" and others. as a follow-up to a leash's question, i have seen coverage that women are no longer this block that politicians can expect to appeal to with one set of issues and you can no longer count on women to just vote on specific issues. can you address that question and the challenge for you and in general for viewing women as a monolithic voting bloc? >> i always thought that it was odd that we thought they were one issue voters to begin with. 51% of the population? women are very different in that population.

what i think is really important here is that there are key economic priorities that women in this country feel are very, very important. these are priorities that we are not seeing the republican party addressing. the democratic party needs to really lean into some of these, including equal pay at the top of lists. this is a huge issue. women are really feeling that things are not quite right out there. because they have to make a payment every night to make sure they have enough food for the kids or their putting gas in a car. they are feeling it. for a long time folks thought that democratic women were reproductive rights. with women, it is all part of an economic future and our ability to make choices. it is all important and they

feel it is all important. i think that we have done successfully at emily's list is broaden the agenda, but even more importantly is how we are communicating with women. the biggest change that is starting to happen is our ability to meet women where they are and talk about the issues that they face. not just blast them with television commercials. it is not working. arguably it is now working for men in this country either, but it is really not working for women. our ability to use on-line programs, to have long conversations with women, not just one day or one week, but over a year to make sure they know what is going on, that is part of our future in building the coalition, to really be a part of the education of women

voters across the country. it is not so much about one issue or a series of issues. but it is a progressive economic agenda, not one that will take us back. just like health care. they feel that it is time to move forward from these debates. that choice is available for us in our personal lives and health care, and now in our economics. it is about all of that and it is where we are communicating. that is where we will be playing a bigger role in the years to come. thank you. >> yes? >> -tiffany [indiscernible] -- my name is tiffany [indiscernible] and i was a women voters in turn in 2006. -- intern in 2006.

[inaudible] >> you have had very good luck with great women. >> absolutely. my colleagues and i often talk about this. one of my best friends is from texas. we talked a lot about being progressive and being from the states. frankly, we feel a little bit intimidated and under- represented. my question to you is what advice do you have for women that come from those states where things are more conservative demo or where we want to see the country go? >> particularly in texas, where we do need to do some work

there. the truth is you have got to get involved. there are lots of women and men who feel the same way in texas, virginia, or georgia. dare there. our ability to start networking those folks to build a coalition in the state and find a right candidate is what we have to do. there are some great organizations in texas and around the country doing local work. isly's list as a network building out more and more, because we know that these changes cannot all happen at the congressional level. we have to move these governors. when there are 38 governorships up for election in the next few years, these are critical. some of the worst things we have seen for women's health in particular, but voter ids,

voting rights laws, workers rights, they are happening at the state level and conservatives are winning. it is for us in particular, i think, women have a huge opportunity to step up and really make a change. they can speak about what these laws do to them, their families, and their communities. i have read some great activism in texas that does just that. whether it has been the outrageous restrictions that they put on women and access to reproductive care to some of the education. the constant education battles. we have to get more and more involved. we have got to talk to our sisters. do not assume that they are not with us. they may not be with us on everything. they may not be the progressive bought everything. i am not progressive but everything either.

when it comes to engagement and having conversation, trying to find solutions and bringing people to the table to do that, i think that that is what people -- what women bring an extra weight to. we do it at home all the time. i watched my mother do it for years. and none of us would ever agree and she would sit us down. we have got to get those women up. it is our time. i really see it as our time to do this. not just in government, by the way. truthfully, why not on the boards? why did they not have more women on them? why are there not more women senior law partners in this country? more women ceo's. i have seen more incredible women sitting vice-president

spots around the country. report after report, even a harvard business review. when there are more women on the corporate board, you actually do better as a country financially. it is our time and we have to help each other build these networks to move these women up. that is when we get to the best policies. >> another question? >> my name is aaron matheson. one question, moving forward, let's say that the conservatives -- recently, bobby jindal has tried to paint himself as a contraceptive moderate. at the same time, they went and certified these clinic regulations very quietly around the new year. let's say that there is less publicity.

how do we keep the momentum from going forward? >> it is about the community, the networks. we have had such growth, 2 million into 4 million. that is our ability to make sure that everyone knows what is going on and what could happen. i am not so confident, but they may, if they have learned any lessons. they will. we have already seen a number of bills introduced in legislatures in a number of places that look just like that to throw those regulations through in the dark of night. remember, it is not just about reproductive health care. that is a huge piece of it, but i will tell you, it is only a social issue if you have not had

to pay for birth control. for most of us, this is an economic issue. it is what they are going to do in congress with social security and medicare. it is what we're doing with voter id laws. voter id laws are very hard on senior women across the country. the happen to be more senior .omen than senior men talk about pay equity and education. these are the issues that we have to start addressing and bringing up. it is about a larger economic agenda for women to move forward. that includes total access to health care.

i think that is the conversation that all of us need to start having with women and their families across the country. >> of all the new women elected to congress, congratulations. were there any who were african- american? >> we had quite a lot of diversity this year. you're going to catch me off guard, i will have to remember. one of the first asian-american women in the united states senate, as well as our first openly gay member of the united states senate. we have continued to support -- well, we have gloria mccloud out of california. we have supported many, many african-americans who won

reelection this year. i will say this, as we look at places like texas and georgia, mexico, arizona, and florida, we're working very closely with more and more women running for legislature. there are amazing women stepping up and making the changes. it is an exciting time. we would like 51% of congress to be women, which is fair. i will take 50%. we do want congress to reflect this nation, meaning that it is important for us to continue doing our work within these communities. that is something you will see a lot more of. >> thank you very much.

>> great, thank you. it was an honor to be here. we had a great year and i promise you that we will have many great cycles coming from emily's list. thank you. >> they have brochures out here for you, if you want. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> well, welcome.

[laughter] >> i know. [laughter] >> wrapping up here at the national press club. if you missed any of this discussion, it is available on our website, c-span.org. this afternoon president obama is expected to make a couple of personnel announcements. chuck hegel is the picked to replace leon panetta. the current white house counterterrorism adviser, john brennan, is expected to be nominated to the cia. there were concerns over his

endorsement a few years ago. we'll have live coverage of the announcement today, here on c- span. again, chuck hagel, right now chairing the atlantic council. also, john brennan, nominated to head the cia. he is the current white house counter-terrorism adviser and cia deputy director for a couple of years. those announcements were expected this afternoon. -- are expected this afternoon. we will likely hear more about these nominations today during a white house briefing. we will have live coverage of that also here on c-span. >> i think that cyber security remains the top priority.

we saw congress failing to reach an agreement on the legislation in 2012, as many would have predicted. they remain very far apart because industry is opposed to these security standards. >> another big issue will be implementing the option to create more spectrum so the fcc has its sleeves and rolled up and is in the middle of working on that. some of the hot-button issues there are on license spectrum's, powering wi-fi and the other amazing devices that they are coming up with all the time. >> net neutrality could be a big issue next year. it is not clear how the court will rule, but there are indications that they have been skeptical of their authority in the past. >> a look of the major technology and telecommunications issues of

2013 tonight, on "the communicators." on c-span 2. >> yesterday in a rare address to the nation, the syrian president outlined ways for the country to move forward but he made no mention of stepping down as leader. civil war broke out there 21 months ago. according to the united nations, 60,000 people have been killed. this one hour-long event is courtesy of aljazeera english. [chanting] >> this is the first time since november that the president has given a public address in his own country.

>> may be as many as 60,000 people have lost their lives in the course of the conflict, according to the united nations. our translator is standing by to bring you president bashar al- assad, live. >> members of the government, ladies and gentlemen, today i would look at your faces and the faces of people of my country with sadness and pain. i look at the eyes of the children of syria and do not

see an innocent smile on their faces. i look at the hands of the elderly and i see them praying for their children, daughters, and grandchildren. safety and security are absent in these streets. many women lost their children, many children became orphans. siblings have been divided. this pain is spread over the country.

from the pain, hope is born. from difficulty, solutions come. a dark cloud would hide the sun, but it would provide rain and cleanliness that would provide goodness for the country. syria will not come out of its impulse unless it changes this into a solution that will bring the country out of its impulse but it has never witnessed in

the history of this region. this is the only way we can remedy all the injuries and deep wounds that we have in syria and the only way to keep syria more viable and bring it back socially, morally, and economically. everyone is responsible, however simple in his view. the country is ours. we defend it collectively. the situation is defense, and

the preservation of people's property is defense. to preserve the country as a whole, every person knows exactly what is going on, and negative-ness of others will not sort out the problem. it will not help the country to come out of its difficulty. many have fell into the trap that the conflict is between holding the power and authority, and therefore they stayed back and kept silent. therefore it is our duty, so that people can use the compass

in the right direction. the difference between a man who fights for his bread and warmth and the safety that everyone wanted to have. they killed the people in order to kill the light in our country. they killed the intellect in order to inflict ignorance on this.

deprived children from the school in order to bring the country backward. the affected electricity so that they make the elderly and children suffer the coldness of winter. it is also their brutality, stealing the wheat and sources of food in order to make people hungry. is it a conflict against the authority to take the power of the country? is it to kill the people and fragments syria? these are the enemies of the people. the enemies of the people are the enemies of god. the enemies of god will be in hell on the day of judgment.

they came with their false claims, and they were supported by media and money. when they failed, they moved a second stage. they claimed peaceful means and they showed that they were armed and resorted to arms. they began to affect countries. towns attacked the brutally. the more they attacked, the more the people stood fastly to show the falsehood. eventually they resulted to terrorism, to terrorize people. the college revolution. it has nothing to do with any revolutions -- they call it revolution.

it has nothing to do with revolutions. who is providing thinking and thoughts for this revolution? revolutions are based on scientific notions. they are to push countries forward, not bring them backward. it is a revolution of people who live in the country, not people who come in, imported from outside. these are a bunch of criminals. but those who use religion in order to kill collectively and supporting gangsters, every time the army stands hand in hand with the people, they come closer to their demise. however, they began to kill in the front lines. they used blood shed. the ideology of religious

difference is new to us, and is something strange to us. we have terrorists that have the ideology of al-qaeda, describe themselves as jihadists, they lead terrorist organizations in the ground.

the use of back lines in order to lead thieving and looting to help those religious groups who know nothing but the language of killing and bloodshed. we, brothers, fight against these people. many of them are not syrians. they came for sinister ideologies and falls ideologies that they call jihad, which is

far from jihad and islam. the people we are facing are those ideologues of al qaeda. three decades ago, we know how they were sponsored by the west and by arab money. after the demise of the soviet union, they went from afghanistan. they went into the west. they tried to get rid of them in afghanistan and in iraq. because this terrorism has infiltrated through western societies themselves, this event has come to the arab world, especially in syria, because now the opportunity is available for them so that the number of terrorists can be increased in syria, and therefore they can get rid of two adversaries.

one is the terrorist. the second is syria. it causes concern to the west. another organization issued a report a month ago to retreat from terrorist activities. this happened in east asia. they come now to syria, and some of them come from western countries. wherever they come from, it is dangerous. it is not impossible to defeat them when we have the courage and will to deal with them. however, the infiltration is very dangerous. this is what we need if they come and infiltrate our society. they will mutate our society regardless of what difficulties and differences politically

syria has an otherwise would fall into the trap handed down to our children. ideology that syria, that we know -- this would also destroy our geographical being. they will destroy any society they infiltrate. it is a huge responsibility. we need to be united to stand against. however, the crisis has got other dimensions. not domestically alone. anyone who wanted to see in the region, there are those who are trying to weaken or demise syria, by money, arms, and others by support and training. countries that our enemies that have built themselves on occupation. others that are trying to find a place in history that they never had. they wrote the history with the

blood of arab people, and in particular syria. the syrian people are stronger than them, and will teach them a lesson. [applause] internationally, it is no secret that syria was and is still a sovereign place, that does not accept trusteeship from anybody. this is what alarmed the west and still does. they used internal events in

order to take syria out of the political equation, so that they get rid of this phobia that they have. our position is the same as others. international society is not only limited to the west, however, there are others like russia and china who refuse interference in the sovereignty of other countries. this is based on their principles of helping other people to self-determination. we would like to thank all these countries. china, russia, and iran. we are very grateful to them. [applause]

in the light of all this long introduction, we cannot speak about solutions, except if we take into consideration all these factors internally, regionally, and internationally. any process will not change the solutions. if the dispute was between a position and loyals, if it is to do with loyalty and opposition, this would be on the basis of construct the country, not destroy it. it is about progression, not going backward. the difference between

opposition and loyalty is internal, but when it becomes from inside being directed and used by outsiders, it turns it into an conflict. this would be occupation, political occupation from outside into the country. that would turn the country into defending again from outside influence. outside, we do not mean where these people live. the place where they put their heart, mind, loyalty. regardless where they reside. some people live abroad, but they defend their country. it is not their opposition or being loyal or fighting. we are any situation. we're fighting against an external, a vicious war which is so dangerous. it is much more dangerous and

harmful than any traditional war. regardless where they reside. some people live abroad, but they defend their country. it is not their opposition or being loyal or fighting. we are any situation. we're fighting against an external, a vicious war which is so dangerous. it is much more dangerous and harmful than any traditional war. we are used in order to implement their plots. they're trying to use us in order to destroy our generations, unfortunately, by the help of some of us. therefore, we have to defend

our country. this is not going to change anything in the war. however, it would strengthen and unite us in order to face this challenge. some think that reform would sort out the problem. it is only a contributory factor. reform is important to help hopes, because hopes without reforms would not help. if syria is one to resort to security, they do not understand. reform with one hand, destroy terrorism with the other hand. therefore, when someone is subjected to attack and defended himself, the person who defended himself or used security means -- when people

defend the country and the country defend itself, they say they chose the security option. defending the country is -- duty is legal, and it is a legitimate option. if we decided to defend ourselves and use the security option, it does not mean we're defendant ourselves. sorry, i repeat. it does not mean we do not defend ourselves. if we took the political option, that means we need a partner that is able to enter

into dialogue on the national side. if we did not in the past take any partner, and that was our choice. if some wanted to get married and could not find the right partner, or did not find any person that would accept him, that does not mean that this person does not want to get married. however, it means that he could not find the right partner. a book about security solution, but no one in the country said that we only opted for the security option.

we did not refuse any political solutions. we adopted this from day one, through dialogue. we have encouraged anyone with political projects, but with whom can we debate with extremists who do not understand except the language of terrorism and bloodshed? outsiders, do we listen to them when they know that that dialogue is going to frustrate, especially people from the region that know that by syria coming out from its impulse, it would affect adversely, and use their finance in order to sponsor terrorism. that shows their implications.

implication in bloodshed. or use the foreign powers. in the debate with those who are genuine people, who are not talking to us with pre-written in the script from outside. [applause] but they use the policy of division and seditions. we are sovereign. we talked our language. we have been brought up in dignity. why would we listen to them and

listen to their debates? accordingly, those who talk about only political solution would ignore totally these factors. either they are ignorant of the actual facts, or they are using the language that helps criminals endorse and those who are behind them to sell their people. dealing with us in this manner, we do not accept that. we have to deal with everything.

political, terrorism, and an important factor, which is the social solution. the situation has become better because of the social solution, because people who are patriotic and who came with initiatives and have made negotiations and mediated between farmers and locals, and it has given good results on the ground. these people do not have any program other than being patriotic. if we look at the solution comprehensively and we look at the access politically, socially, and security wise, we still have to go back to our special basis.

the social roots, and i would like to give to those people who have made achievements -- and others i have met directly. others i have heard of. i would like to thank them very much on their initiatives. [applause] from what i said, that there is nobody to speak to, that is not true. we are always respecting our hand for dialogue. we would have a dollar with anyone who differs with us politically and anyone who has any stance, as long as the stance is based on principles and patriotism. we will speak with anyone who does not sell this country to

foreigners so that we get the arab-syrian blood back to the people. and those who were in interest of syrian independence and interest based on our principles that looks after the stability of syria and the united nations, which respects the sovereignty of people and their countries, and not interferes in their internal affairs and believe in the dialogue between syrian people, and to get stability back to syria, the political solutions will be as follows. the first stage, the relevant countries to stop arming and financing people who are armed

to conduct these terrorist organizations, terrorist actions inside the country, so that they can live in their places of residence safely. also, military actions from armed forces to reserve their right to defend any private or public property. secondly, we find a mechanism in order to find a solution and also the borders. thirdly, the government will begin to have extensive contacts with all this spectrum of society, syrian society, in order to have a whole dialogue, the congress to have a dialogue with syrian people to sort the problem. second stage. firstly, the government would

like to have a conference to have dialogue, a comprehensive dialogue in order to have a charter to protect the integrity of the country and condemn terrorism and preserve the integrity of the country. the country will come in order to specify the criteria for the second stage. a national charter to preserve the unity of the country and condemn terrorism. this charter is what is going to preserve syria in the future and its politics, economics. secondly, we will have a

referendum. thirdly, we have an expanded government which carries out the national charter. fourthly, we put to the people, and the conference of dialogue to agree a dialogue for elections. anything to do with constitution and the law, we can say if in the conference dialogue the government can carry out whatever is agreed on. the third stage.

firstly, a new government to be set up in accordance with the constitution. and also, we have a general congress to have reconciliation and give amnesty to everyone in prison. thirdly, to reestablish the infrastructure and compensate people who have suffered damages. also, talking about amnesty, the country can forfeit its rights. however, we cannot give amnesty on behalf of people because it is the civil right to. amnesty would be general, and only by this amnesty we can get into national reconsolation, when everyone forgives everyone else. these are the main features of the political solution, as we

see it. these are only just the headlines that need details, which the government will begin to put details and expand on these points and put this vision in the form of an initiative. this would be followed up in accordance with the way it is laid down. we need to put every topic in its context. we live in times of falsehood and manipulation. this is something we do not do. it is done by them. we need to put these things in the right context and put the right definitions. some, when they see this

vision, they think there is a return backwards from the security point of view. i would like to reassure everybody, as far as fighting terrorism, we will not stop fighting terrorism as long as we have even one single terrorist in syria. this does not mean we're going to lessen the fight on terrorism. [applause] [chanting]

secondly, this vision, you could call it initiative vision. these ideas are aimed at everyone who wanted dialogue and everyone who wanted a solution. it is not for those who do not want or do not try. we try from today, we may find, for example, a lot of rejection from people who want to ask, why do you reject something that is not aimed at you in the first place? [applause] thirdly, any initiative that is

proposed by anybody person or of the state, it have to be based on the syrian vision, not to replace what we as syrians see as a solution. any initiative has to be an initiative to assist what the syrians are going to do, not replace it. this is an initiative from the government. any initiative from outside it has to be coming in order to help and assist, not replace. we need not waste time on any replacements. if we ask, how can outside initiatives help us, there are

two avenues. one, politically. two, counter-terrorism. we are capable of being without politics. anyone who wanted to effectively and practically help us, they can concentrate on stopping armed people coming into syria. these are the parameters they can work within. a country that is thousands of years old cannot be dictated to politically. [applause] fourth point, that we support any assisting initiatives coming from outside. we cannot accept any interpretation or construction

of it unless it is to help syria, and therefore we can talk about the syrian initiative, which is the transitional period. when we talk about transitional period, we would want to move from where to where? do we move from a free country to an occupied country, from a situation of where there is a state to a situation of chaos? it has to be a national decision. the other situation, if there is no crisis, the situation of transition is always from one place into something better. any situation to do with any transitional process, what we're doing now -- i am sorry, i

can say, these ideas to represent this moment of the transitional period. fifthly, an initiative we except would be because it is based on the assumption of sovereignty. and the initiative concentrate on this, and therefore, anything agreed inside or outside syria has to be decided by the people. even the national charter that can be done by the dialogue conference, it has to be done by people, referendum, and anything comes from outside or inside an idea, it has to be

gone through referendum by the people. not the government, not the president, and no one else. obviously we show a kind of guarantee that these steps do represent people's conciliation and national reconciliation. this is simple talk, and is very clear. anyone who comes to syria and leaves syria should know that. syria accepts assistance, but does not accept oppression. anything you heard in the past or you hear from ideas,

concepts, declarations from the media, officials, if there are things to do, to talk about, then be so just by soap bubbles. [applause] any interpretation of any topic that is outside syrian sovereignty is just no more than dreams. they can live in these dreams, but not to make us live in this. we can only live in reality. anything would have to come from the syrian reality and interests of the syrian people. [applause] [chanting] dear sisters, dear brothers, the country is above everybody.

syria is over and above everybody. politically, it will be strengthened. we will defend its territory. the syrians are forgiven, but they will not give up their dignity. here are many people that came to fight against terrorism. some provided vital information that helped in order to frustrate planned terrorist actions against the people.

those were fought against terrorists by defending their areas or even to demonstrate against the murderous, armed people, and those who died against this and those who fight side-by-side with armed forces in order to fight, to defend the different areas and towns, and the infrastructure. i would like to give one example in north syria. the brave men of this town, which is on the border of turkey, they stood for a number of days, defending against terrorist attacks. they managed to defend and defeat these terrorists that

were coming from turkey. i pay tribute to them. [applause] some of them tried and were able to convince and forgive other people through national reconciliation, which has broken the road for these terrorists in order to cause divisions. they were able to bring harmony. if they are not outside us, we are not outside them. the country is not only belonging to those who live in it, but also those who defended it. those who defend it, and those who need it. those who have stood for the country when the country needed them, regardless of where they

were. many people, regardless of what they did and despite the differences, they stood to give unreservedly for the country. others have defended the country and to stop the deceit that was attacking. they stopped the brotherhood, as was defined by the west, and they came with vicious hatred and ideology of division. it was only a spring for those who have plotted it and try to spread it. the blood of these martyrs is the epic that will defend this country and help defend our integrity and unity together.

it will cleanse our country from the betrayal and deceit. it will keep our country and its humanity. this is a strong thing. when the country is victorious, it does not forget those who have exerted efforts for it. i salute those who deserve the best salute, which is the army. the syrian arab army. [applause] [chanting] i salute our officers. i salute our brave soldiers.

[chanting] i salute the soldiers, warrant officers, and officers who have exerted their effort and have paid their blood for the country. i salute the armed forces who fought in the most vicious wars in order to preserve the safety and security. the armed forces that have stood fastly, and wrought an epic to keep the country and preserve the people with their

honor and safety. every soldier who fought to defend the country, a victory to them and victory to all those who fought and died for the country. i salute every citizen who stood by the armed forces. ever won by his means, the names will be written -- everyone by his means, the names will be written with light and fire. they defended their countries and peoples. [applause] dear brothers and sisters, i know as you all know what the

country is going through is painful. i feel like most of the people feel about losing loved ones and the martyrdoms. the fire of their hatred afflicted and affected all of us. i am included. i am one of the people. i will always be like this. i will go one day, but the country stays. [applause] the mothers who lost their children, their tears will be -- mercy for their children, and hell for those who have stolen the smile of their children. we will have -- syria will be

stronger than it was. we will not give up our rights. we will defend syria internally. those who think we will forget palestine, we will continue as we always did. we will support resistance as ideology. it is not about giving up. we will stand by the palestinian people for their just cause that lasted for decades. all the sacrifices paid by the syrian people, this is the country, and people will not be

in any position other than by the side of the palestinians. syrians will help the second homeland, and we have our duty towards them. the same duty we would have towards any syrian. our salute to every palestinian who stood by the syrians and by syria, and those who stood by us in the difficult situation. [applause]

dear sisters and brothers, despite all the plots against syria and whatever the close ones before the strangers did for us will not change as, because what syria has is very profound, well established. syria runs in our veins. it tells the whole universe that we are steadfastly standing against this. persevering and challenging, it is something that syria has inherited. we will go with syria and take syria to a stronger, and we will go forward.

we will not be intimidated by bullets or intimidation. we have the right. god is always with the right. and may god be with you. [applause] [chanting] >> our coverage will continue. president assad being greeted by his supporters at the opera house in damascus. they have been chanting, "with our soul and blood, we will defend you, assad." [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> president obama is expected to make a few personnel

announcements for is national security team. former republican senator from nebraska, chuck kaye goal -- chuck hagel, select it to replace outgoing leon panetta. and it john brennan is expected to renominated as the head of teh cia. he withdrew a his name for consideration years ago over his support of certain interrogation techniques. we will have that announcement why about 1:00 and we will likely hear more during today's white house briefing with a spokesperson jakarta. -- jay carney. >> i think cybersecurity remains a top priority. massar congress failed to reach a decision in 2012. they remain very far apart in

these social security standpoint. >> there will be an incentive option to create more of a spectrum so that the sec house this rolled up. some of the hot-button issues are the unlicensed spectrum that hours wifi and other things the tech sector is coming up with. >> net neutrality could be a big issue. it is unclear how the court will rule, but there are issues in the past that could be skeptical of the sec's authority. >> looking at the telecommunications issues in 2013 tonight on "the communicators." >> studentcam video and trees

are doing now. get them in by the deadline friday, february 18th -- january 18th. for more details, studentcam.org. >> brook gladstone is the npr host of "on the media." she is the author of a new book on the history and influence of the media called, "the influencing machine." this is one hour, 20 minutes. >> our moderator tonight is the professor of media studies at fordham university, the author of four books on cultural programming, and he was the head of special projects for 50 years. he frequently moderates events around the city for the screen actors guild, and for us.

ampa, bafta, and more. please welcome brian rose. next, we could not be more honored and delighted to have brooke gladstone here tonight. she is the managing editor and co-host of npr. she hosts "on the media." her new book is "the influencing machine." i just want to let you know we will be doing a signing of her book. the paperback has just come out. she has been at npr for many years. she covered the last turbulent years. i know all of you media groupies out there will agree there is something about brooke that just pulls you in.

each week, even at 7:00 a.m. on saturday -- ira glass, host of "this american life" put it best. "just like michael lewis, brooke can somehow take any subject and make it very interesting." please welcome brooke gladstone. [applause] >> thank you. i would like to start with your book. in this book, you talk about a number of media biases. one of my favorites is the narrative bias.

the media takes a story and, the matter what it is, has to come up with a beginning, middle, and end. we have just gone through an election where there were thousands of just such events. do you think we miss a lot when presidential elections are treated as a four-year heavyweight battle to the death beginning literally the day after the last election is held? >> we miss something. completely coo ndemn horserace coverage. one gets fixated on a hunt for gaffes. who said what? some are quite revealing.

i cannot entirely condemn. you have the 47% remark which could be relevatory. he said he didn't mean it and then after the election he pretty much said the same thing again. it did tell us a lot and had a great impact. at least for a while, the president's poor debate performance. these are all part and parcel of american life and democracy. the problem is that we are wired for that. we organize our information in the form of stories. there are lots of breaking items that really don't lend themselves, but we have to use

it anyway. it is part of what is wired in to the business of journalism. for instance, discussions of tax policy, discussions of obamacare, and so forth. once you have said, can you say it again? to keep reporting the same thing over and over again, every time somebody represents it. >> how would you characterize the way the press handled this election compared to other elections? >> they all suck, let's face it. i cannot remember one that i thought was a truly good experience. for the last four elections, at least. i am there waiting for it, there is. so it goes on election cycle after election cycle.

>> your show itself played some role in covering the election so extensively. you faced one of the great media -- john sununu. i wonder if you can share what it was like. >> it was one of the most contentious interviews i have ever done. just a truly train wreck sounding interview. when he said, when i questioned one of his remarks, he said york public radio, you are just there to kiss the president's butt. public radio is always so civil. a way, it is kind of refreshing.

here he is, here is the guy unvarnished. it was very edited. i never edit to win the argument. but he was who he was. i thought it was really useful, even though i was -- all the way through it. >> you bring up the notion of npr, and why are npr and pbs such a target for people like sununu or romney? particularly where fairness and of the activity seemed to be so rigid why are you such a target for people who you would think would embrace fairness and objectivity?

>> who would that be? >> why is big bird such an enemy? >> it is not big bird. big bird is the savior. every administration has collided with npr and complained about it, republican and democratic. it is only republicans that want to zero out the budget. the only thing that comes back every time is a big bird. he is invincible. he just slices right through the opposition. why public radio and public television is such a target is, public radio is increasing, and 10% of public radio's money

comes from the government. that money were not there, if they did not have the taxpayer banner to wait, that would not have a case to make. we would just be anybody else that they dislike. it is not as if the new york times has not been singled out over and over again as well. it has been 30 years of this notion that mainstream media reports in a liberally biased way. a lot of people feel ill served by mainstream media. there was one completely dead form of media that was single- handedly resurrected by rush limbaugh, and that was a.m. radio. it was a place people unserved by mainstream media could go and be angry.

i watched fox news almost exclusively on election night. >> who didn't? >> tavis wanted to see how they covered it. shepherd smith was a very fair guy. it was more diverse than msnbc by far. you had the great moment when karl rove produced that primal scream and you saw flocks trying very hard to address this in a clear and open way as they could. i understand that roger ailes, the head of fox news said to his staff before the election,

it looks like obama is winning. don't act like somebody ran over your dog. some did, but mostly they didn't. >> we live in an age now where this ossicle to be hermetically sealed away from it be that does not agree with your own. is it really that different from the way the press used to behave? we live in an age of cable news network. is it now possible for one point of view it ever really except another point of view?

>> you are right about history. a big part of my book recounts the history of journalism from the invention of the written word to the year 2042. what i find is over and over again that golden period that so many people refer to is basically a golden age of media. contrary to media trends of the media getting cheaper and cheaper, there with the creation of a medium that was slightly more essential. required assembling enormous audiences, and how do you do that? it marginalizes outsiders and

appeals to a broad middle. if you want to watch television, you will have to find yourself identifying with that great middle, no matter that your life has nothing to do with the life that beaver cleaver lead. that is to is on television. -- that's who is on. there are a lot of people that who are not otherwise represented, people with all different colors, immigrants who never saw themselves on television who were forced, more or less, to subscribe to this great middle. likewise, at the time that television was being created, television newscasts were being created, the government was in the midst of a political moment

that was far off existentially. it created the style of objectivity, which basically was leaving stuff out and creating a big, central point of view. that made everybody happy, especially the government's that would like to see television regulated. to get back to your question about can we ever find voices that reflect the views with which we don't agree? of course we can, if we want to. there is a study that was done at harvard that found that people who worked incredibly well informed before the internet were even more informed after the internet. and people who were not interested in news before the

internet where now even less informed after the internet. it just shows what i have always believed, and what i think all the evidence bears out. the new technology just makes me more of what we were going to be anyway. if you are naturally curious, and you are willing to venture out of your comfort zone, the environment is so rich. if you want to be hermetically sealed, that option is available. >> by the same token, people who might be liberals or conservatives do at least have an enemy they can identify with, which was not always possible in the age of walter cronkite. one solo voice of mainstream journalism. >> that had enemies, they just were not on television. when you think about it, consider walter cronkite, known to many in the day as uncle

walter. it would be ludicrous to call any newscaster a relative today. can you imagine anybody trying to get away with a presumptuous statement like "and that's the way it is." everybody craved the comfort of that dinnertime slice of consensus reality. i think that the more media sources you have dividing up the audience, the smaller the public square becomes. less consensus, but you are exchanging that comfort for the comfort of knowing that there are other people like you in the world who care about the things that you care about.

i am always in favor of more speech, rather than less, even though everything has a side effect. >> speaking of more speech, a lot of cities in the country, cleveland is next to be the target, or facing the prospect of having their local newspapers disappear. i think going to three days a week is the same as disappearing. it is only a matter of time before they say, do we even need three days a week. what do you think the impact will be when there is no longer any central voice of a particular locale? >> one study found that the biggest black that the new media era has created is local

accountability. there are some of blogs that have tried to rise to the occasion. certainly that is true in denver. there is a database, public online site. partners with local television and everyone else. i think you will see a lot of partnerships coming up to fill that gap eventually. the public has to value it. it is really up to the public to value all these things. everybody says you cannot monetize online. everybody has viewed the information for free. when i was a kid, i was used to

tv being freed. you get used to paying for things once you realize how much they matter to you. i also found that people love their gadgets and they will pay for content on their gadgets that they will not necessarily pay for on the internet. they love to have the special apps on the phone to make the consumption of information very convenient. there are pay walls that never worked before that are working better now. there is the old italian communist wrote in his prison dari's that famous statement, the old world is dead, the new world is yet to be born, and in between there is much morbidity. welcome to morbidity, folks. >> your book devotes a

considerable amount of time to talking about the development of objective reporting, fairness in journalism. i am sure a number of people in this room undoubtedly hope to follow in your footsteps and become a journalist. i wonder if you could talk about what you think are the major challenges they will be confronting in terms of trying to practice serious, and biased reporting. >> unbiased, objective, fair, they are all slightly different. i think that the obligation of the journalist is to tell the whole truth, and to tell both sides barely, not to be invisible or pretend to belong to some order of passionless beat that does not really care. that you cannot bring any judgment you have accrued to that experience into your

reporting. i think that we are entering a period of more reflective reporting. some of the greatest reporting america has ever seen was done by muckrakers. ida tarbell and exposing standard oil. these amazing investigative enterprises that did so much to expose what was wrong in the country. i think that the golden age, which is a misnomer, has passed. and i think that anybody wants to be a journalist today should not try and follow days of your, working in the mail room. anybody who wants to be a

journalist in the next generation needs to find something they care about, and develop expertise, and then go there and start writing about it. i first encountered a new york times writer when he was doing little blog about people dating, which everyone in the industry was looking at. did anybody know that he was 16 or 17? he came to the office for an interview and i said, are you old enough to do this? he said next year. need i mention nate silver, who has become a byword? reading drunk nate silver making yellow circles where the fly balls will be.